GAT_00:doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

DeaH:skipjack: doyner: skipjack: I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Bless your heart.

I like Tennessee. I've lived up north, out west and I like the South and it's people. Nothing like the cold blank stare of a northerner when you say hello.

You have never been to Chicago. The day after I moved there, there was a blizzard. In March. I was walking from a convenience store to my temporary housing downtown when a cab pulled up along me. I waved him on explaining that I had no cash. He said, "Lady, it's a blizzard. Just get in the cab, I'll take you where you need to go." Never experienced anything like that in the south, certainly not in Nashville or Houston. If you stop and ask for directions in Chicago, half-a-dozen people will gather around trying to help you. Sure, you'll get half-a-dozen different directions, but everyone will try to help.

That's Midwest hospitality for you. :)

It's like Southern hospitality but without all the veiled condescension.

This is why the Electoral College needs to DIAF. Yeah, these states are developing pockets of Democratic voters, but no way will Obama, or any other Democratic candidate in the foreseeable future, carry the state as a whole, so those votes are getting flushed down the shiatter.

And I hate the "If there's no electoral college, small states get neglected!" argument. As it is now, a candidate can write off a state they know they can't win: Obama can scratch off Georgia, say, and Romney can forget about California. But if the candidates have to hunt and scratch for every vote everywhere to win, they have to pay attention to the country as a whole, including places they may find irrelevant under the current system.

Linux_Yes:the South thinks FOX News is a trustworthy news source that gives them the straight facts. they think Hanjob Hannity (mr high school graduate) is a Journalist.

that is how dumb the South as a whole is.

Dude, you act as though the South is the sole repository of idiots in this country. We have a higher concentration of them, yes. But the rest of America isn't too far behind. Some of the most gaping assholes of the Teatard movement in elected positions in New York, Arizona, etc. Do I even need to bring up Michelle Bachmann's district voting for her again and again, no matter what public derpdown she has?

Look, I get that it's popular to hate on the South, and that some people use it a means to feel better about their own neighborhoods. But I say to all of you - maybe clean up your own back yard first.

nmrsnr:Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

Well, under the current system, large states like CA, NY, and TX are ignored, which is lamer than ignoring AK, WY, RI, MT, etc

Look, I get that it's popular to hate on the South, and that some people use it a means to feel better about their own neighborhoods. But I say to all of you - maybe clean up your own back yard first.

Pretty much this; folks need to realize that the most segregated metropolitan areas aren't in the South, but the upper Midwest. Milwaukee takes the prize in case you're wondering. And the suburbs there have racial attitudes that are straight out of 1958 Alabama or 1975 South Africa.

And honestly, most of the business and educational centers down South are run by Democrats; with some being downright liberal: Chapel Hill, Asheville, New Orleans, and Atlanta come to mind. So in sum, anywhere important in the South is run by Democrats. As one poster noted, the moment you enter the suburbs, you enter Republican territory. And I've only seen one exception to that: Madison, Wisconsin.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone there is no stupidity or racism in the South. But what I am going to tell you is that those things exist in the North as well: Scott Walker, Michelle Bachmann, the NYPD, and Paul Ryan are not of the South

It's just that the South has a history of being a bit more extreme in their resistance to integration.

Egalitarian:there are a fair number of Yankees who migrated to the South for retirement (but didn't go all the way to Florida). Don't be surprised that there's no monolithic Southern white vote, in areas where Yankees have diluted the electorate.

And many times these retirees actually add to the derp: many of them moved out to the 'burbs the moment a black family even had the audacity to consider moving onto the block. And when these geezers move South, they feel a bit of dissapointment that Sheriff Bubba McBigot isn't nightsticking the black folk any more when they try to register to vote

I went to college in South Carolina. "Heritage, Not Hate" was a really big bumper sticker fad at the time (probably still is). One night I thought of the idea for my own bumper sticker, "It's Your Heritage I Hate."

Anyway, I genuinely thought about having some printed, but then figured it would just result in people getting beat up or shot at. At the very least their cars would be vandalized. Hell, we see that just for having the audacity of sporting an Obama/Biden sticker.

Mrtraveler01:dickfreckle: Unless you live in New Orleans (liberal almost to the point of hilarity) this place is all about the flags and the Jesus.

It's amazing how fast it switches to all of that once you cross into Jefferson/St. Tammany/St. Bernard Parrishes.

Yeah, but that's typical of nearly any city in any part of America. The suburbs are where conservative white people tend to gather. I don't mean that there aren't plenty of Democrats out there as well (there are). But as a rule we "urban-dwelling elites" tend to gather one place while obsolete honkies (I can say that 'cos I'm white) gather in their own communities.

I've been to about a million cookie cutter suburbs and they're all basically the same, excepting perhaps the Bay Area and other obvious places. But suburban New Jersey has just as many flag-pimping jingoists as Jefferson Parish does.

It's like Southern hospitality but without all the veiled condescension.

Well said. Just the other day I was in a thread b*tching about the myth of Southern 'hospitality.' I'd rather you just say nothing at all then flash me a perfunctory, meaningless smile before talking sh*t about me behind my back.

As for the Midwest, I really can't recall meeting any assholes from that part of the country, except Bears fans.

/has this guy's face committed to memory so that if by some chance I run into him the next time I'm in Chicago, I can be certain I'm the right guy in the nuts

Eh, once you get farther north in the state, it is. South Louisiana is its own republic in many ways, and definitely has nothing in common with MS, AL, GA, etc.

But the reason I mention LA is that this is the state that once produced one of history's most powerful progressives, Huey Long. In those days, poor white people actually voted for the guy who was best positioned to help them. This trend continued through the Edwin Edwards years (another slimy bastard, but a true populist Democrat).

Now? Sheeeit. Unless you live in New Orleans (liberal almost to the point of hilarity) this place is all about the flags and the Jesus. Our volcano-hating governor just pushed through a voucher program that gives tax dollars to Christian schools that aren't vetted by the same public school standard (as a side note, when a Muslim school applied for these monies, several representatives had apoplectic fits). At the state level the Democratic party is considered neutered and irrelevant. As long as the GOP fights with wedge issue rhetoric and not ideas, Louisiana will never be blue again despite a rich history of being so.

skipjack:doyner: skipjack: I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Bless your heart.

I like Tennessee. I've lived up north, out west and I like the South and it's people. Nothing like the cold blank stare of a northerner when you say hello.

You have never been to Chicago. The day after I moved there, there was a blizzard. In March. I was walking from a convenience store to my temporary housing downtown when a cab pulled up along me. I waved him on explaining that I had no cash. He said, "Lady, it's a blizzard. Just get in the cab, I'll take you where you need to go." Never experienced anything like that in the south, certainly not in Nashville or Houston. If you stop and ask for directions in Chicago, half-a-dozen people will gather around trying to help you. Sure, you'll get half-a-dozen different directions, but everyone will try to help.

FlashHarry:Infernalist: It should be noted that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers because they rightfully understood that most of the general population is/was painfully uneducated and ignorant and they didn't trust a tyranny of the masses.

i believe that was the reason that the senate was originally chosen by state legislatures. the house was for the common rabble, the senate for the elites. sort of like the house of lords.

The basic reason for both things, the reason we're a republic, not a democracy is that the Founding Fathers had all read Plato's Republic (and Greek history) and understood the dangers of the tyranny of the majority.

nmrsnr:jake_lex: This is why the Electoral College needs to DIAF. Yeah, these states are developing pockets of Democratic voters, but no way will Obama, or any other Democratic candidate in the foreseeable future, carry the state as a whole, so those votes are getting flushed down the shiatter.

And I hate the "If there's no electoral college, small states get neglected!" argument. As it is now, a candidate can write off a state they know they can't win: Obama can scratch off Georgia, say, and Romney can forget about California. But if the candidates have to hunt and scratch for every vote everywhere to win, they have to pay attention to the country as a whole, including places they may find irrelevant under the current system.

Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

No, a better system is an electoral college system that isn't all-or-nothing. Make it something like a plurality win is a 60-40 split, 50.1% is 70-30, win by more than 5%, 80-20, by more than 8%, 90-10, and more than 10%, you get all the votes. That way even if you're polling 8 points down in Alabama, you can still win electoral votes by campaigning there if you can swing the election a point in your favor. It makes electoral math a lot more dynamic, and no state is totally off-limits.

Of course you still seem to be running under the assumption that low population states shouldn't be ignored. Politicians should be responsible to people, not to land area or lines on a map. Drawing a line on a map and saying "these people are more important than the people on the other side of the line" should be anathema in a democracy. People shouldn't be able to move from one place on the map to another and go from being completely ignored (in practise) in the electoral system to having a relatively large influence on the outcome (as much as anyone can in a country with 100s of millions of voters).

It really doesn't matter if we keep the Electoral College or if we dump it and go straight popular vote. There are states in this country that will never vote for a certain party, regardless of the means by which the votes are divvied up. Alabama will never go blue again, New York will not go red. So even if we got rid of the EC, there aren't enough Democrats in Alabama, nor are there enough Republicans in New York.

What we need to do is make voting mandatory. Something like 40% of the electorate votes every 4 years, which is farking pathetic. More people give a shiat about who wins Dancing With The Stars, than who is elected President. When you're 18, you should be required to register to vote, and if you don't vote, unless you have a hardship, you're fined. Maybe $30 or something, and that money gets put in your town/city's coffers to fund public works projects, like a new playground in the inner city for kids, or refurbishing a local library.

doyner:GAT_00: And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

I used to get a kick of going home in uniform and being the recipient of the adulation of the militaristic nationalists, only to blow their minds with my relatively liberal views. I don't do that at all any more (haven't for years)--it's just too damned dangerous these days.

I go to school 5 minutes from a church that was shot up by someone wanting to kill liberals, openly proclaiming that. You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

GAT_00:And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

I used to get a kick of going home in uniform and being the recipient of the adulation of the militaristic nationalists, only to blow their minds with my relatively liberal views. I don't do that at all any more (haven't for years)--it's just too damned dangerous these days.

GAT_00:doyner: GAT_00: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

Oh, and before someone asks what it's called today, it's called voting for the Tea Party.

doyner:GAT_00: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

Look, I get that it's popular to hate on the South, and that some people use it a means to feel better about their own neighborhoods. But I say to all of you - maybe clean up your own back yard first.

Pretty much this; folks need to realize that the most segregated metropolitan areas aren't in the South, but the upper Midwest. Milwaukee takes the prize in case you're wondering. And the suburbs there have racial attitudes that are straight out of 1958 Alabama or 1975 South Africa.

And honestly, most of the business and educational centers down South are run by Democrats; with some being downright liberal: Chapel Hill, Asheville, New Orleans, and Atlanta come to mind. So in sum, anywhere important in the South is run by Democrats. As one poster noted, the moment you enter the suburbs, you enter Republican territory. And I've only seen one exception to that: Madison, Wisconsin.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone there is no stupidity or racism in the South. But what I am going to tell you is that those things exist in the North as well: Scott Walker, Michelle Bachmann, the NYPD, and Paul Ryan are not of the South

Yeah, a lot of people gloss over the fact that the Southern secession documents frequently mention the fact that they wanted slavery to expand in the territories won in the Mexican/American War. There was even some resistance to fighting that war in the first place, because they knew it would lead to further divisiveness over what to do with the territory.

doyner:GAT_00: I go to school 5 minutes from a church that was shot up by someone wanting to kill liberals, openly proclaiming that. You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

*checks profile*

Ah. Tennessee. Yeah.

There are a few places in the south where it's cool to be liberal. My personal favorites are Asheville, NC and Oxford, MS. Still, they're too few and far between.

Is there some sort of underground system that can get you from Asheville to Oxford safely?

Ah yes, Indiana: the southernmost Northern state. An oasis of derp in a sea of industrialness. So what was going on with Kentucky and Tennessee, who are unabashedly .. uh, 'southern'? That Democrat 'pull the lever for D any D no matter what' thang you also see in Maryland, ruling the day?

I went to college in South Carolina. "Heritage, Not Hate" was a really big bumper sticker fad at the time (probably still is). One night I thought of the idea for my own bumper sticker, "It's Your Heritage I Hate."

Anyway, I genuinely thought about having some printed, but then figured it would just result in people getting beat up or shot at. At the very least their cars would be vandalized. Hell, we see that just for having the audacity of sporting an Obama/Biden sticker.

dickfreckle:Mrtraveler01: beta_plus: Well, if you have millions of Yankees moving to the south who vote for the policies that caused them to leave the north

You could vote for cold weather?

See, that's the #1 reason I can't live anywhere but the South or Southwest. I farking despise cold weather. I mean with a passion, man. I'm like a weather p*ssy. 58 degrees? Better set up camp for the night and drink my own piss.

The North has some of the greatest cities and attractions of all time, but you're never dragging my ass up there for longer than a month or so at a time. Preferably in July.

Jaicu:skipjack: GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: ....... You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Give me a flying leaping freaking break.Your area, Nashville, is the homeland of Bob Corker, and is not the same 'area' as Knoxville' where know-it-all Gat lives, he is talkative, hardly an idiotic martyr ... you must be jealous of his popularity.

Nor in your wildest is Nashville a dangerous place for a conservative, for crying out loud. Unless you mean longhair who prefer classical music. I'd be in peril their either way. Never go there. It's creepy. Like Dalls.

And don't start claiming you're in 'the same area as' Chattanooga, my fair city. If you come anywhere close you'll feel the warmth of how much we prefer you to stay in your rolling hills of horse country. However, let us remember we do not live in Alabama.

Hey, I used to live in Alabama too. Huntsville, though that's a pretty moderate town. Well, was, it's going hard right in the last couple of years.

And yes, I do live in Knoxville. And while I don't consider myself in extreme danger, the only terrorist attack I can point to, unless of course you want to claim the Y-12 break-in as one, that has occurred near my home was a Fox News loving, Bill O'Reilly book buying conservative who went into a church with the specific goal of killing liberals.

That's a specific threat. I think it would be naive to pretend that there are not people near my home who would consider killing me for being a liberal.

dickfreckle:Linux_Yes: the South thinks FOX News is a trustworthy news source that gives them the straight facts. they think Hanjob Hannity (mr high school graduate) is a Journalist.

that is how dumb the South as a whole is.

Dude, you act as though the South is the sole repository of idiots in this country. We have a higher concentration of them, yes. But the rest of America isn't too far behind. Some of the most gaping assholes of the Teatard movement in elected positions in New York, Arizona, etc. Do I even need to bring up Michelle Bachmann's district voting for her again and again, no matter what public derpdown she has?

Look, I get that it's popular to hate on the South, and that some people use it a means to feel better about their own neighborhoods. But I say to all of you - maybe clean up your own back yard first.

good point. i know i'm inclined to piss on the South more. i spent most of my life in the south and i just resented how they could vote the way they vote. its amazing since they are some of the poorest people in the Union.

but yes, the Nation is full of idiots north and south, east and west. and hawaii too.

Is it me or does "Solid South" sound like a euphenism for taking a duece

Solidly full of sh*t. that's the South. those f*ckers miss the good ole' days when they owned slaves. they're broke, many of them, yet they vote for the republicans who f*ck them in the ass every chance they get.

Dwight_Yeast:The basic reason for both things, the reason we're a republic, not a democracy is that the Founding Fathers had all read Plato's Republic (and Greek history) and understood the dangers of the tyranny of the majority.

exactly. it's amazing how well it worked - at least until 1994, anyway. i'm not sure any document could account for the modern republican party and its atwater/rove bullshiat.

FlashHarry:Infernalist: It should be noted that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers because they rightfully understood that most of the general population is/was painfully uneducated and ignorant and they didn't trust a tyranny of the masses.

i believe that was the reason that the senate was originally chosen by state legislatures. the house was for the common rabble, the senate for the elites. sort of like the house of lords.

you wouldn't know that when living here. by all the measures of the south that are repugnant LA is right up there. fundie religion is schools? check. confederate battle flags? check. truck nuts? check. proud of your ignorance? check.

now i live here and like it but is in spite of not because of the above.

Infernalist:It should be noted that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers because they rightfully understood that most of the general population is/was painfully uneducated and ignorant and they didn't trust a tyranny of the masses.

i believe that was the reason that the senate was originally chosen by state legislatures. the house was for the common rabble, the senate for the elites. sort of like the house of lords.

HotIgneous Intruder:How soon we forget that Abraham Lincoln was a republican and the solid southern democrats were the party opposed to the abolition of slavery. The solid democratic south has been triangulated into oblivion and now it the GOPers who have taken the democrats' place in the flaming lynch mob. Xenophobia is nothing new in this country, as illustrated by the Know Nothing Party, which mainly existed in soon-to-be confederate states before the Civil War.

I think the GOPers are the new Know Nothings.

As has already been mentioned a lot in this thread, the people who were Democrats in the wake of the Civil War changed parties. They were known as the Dixiecrats, and the Dixiescrats changed parties after Civil Rights. They swelled the ranks of the GOP during the period between 1968 to 1980, largely in response to the Republican Party's southern strategy. No one is forgetting the were Democrat. It's just that they are now Republicans. And members of the Tea Party.

GAT_00:doyner: GAT_00: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

it's somewhat funny how this mentality is still alive today. I remember talking about how Memaw is a stupid word (it is.) and this guy from TN took it as if I made some kind of bigoted remark towards Southern Culture*. Certainly not all Southerners are like this, but there's a definite Inferiority Complex about quite a bit of them that's also reflected in their political dialogue (i.e. charges of elitism, True Americanism, etc. I also think a Southern Republican is more likely to get away with talking shiat about Northerners than a Northern Democrat would about Southerners.) It's really interesting how the repercussions of the Civil War are still being fought today (and are rather one-sided in their attacks!)

*It should be noted I was born in VA and lived there a total of 13 years. I currently live in NC. He apparently thinks anyone who lives outside of the South is a Yankee Son of a biatch and anyone not a in a podunk backwood is a city slicker of some sort. (i've never lived in a city.)

skipjack:GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: ....... You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Give me a flying leaping freaking break.Your area, Nashville, is the homeland of Bob Corker, and is not the same 'area' as Knoxville' where know-it-all Gat lives, he is talkative, hardly an idiotic martyr ... you must be jealous of his popularity.

Nor in your wildest is Nashville a dangerous place for a conservative, for crying out loud. Unless you mean longhair who prefer classical music. I'd be in peril their either way. Never go there. It's creepy. Like Dalls.

And don't start claiming you're in 'the same area as' Chattanooga, my fair city. If you come anywhere close you'll feel the warmth of how much we prefer you to stay in your rolling hills of horse country. However, let us remember we do not live in Alabama.

It should be noted that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers because they rightfully understood that most of the general population is/was painfully uneducated and ignorant and they didn't trust a tyranny of the masses.

doyner:GAT_00: doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

Yeah, there's lots of people down here who don't vote for minorities, ever. And they all vote Republican.

I'm a proud southerner myself (and Mrs. doyner is from Mississippi) and I see the southern political pathology as being a part of the larger picture; a demonstration of the nature of the southern mind.

Quite simply, there is a basic need to be clearly and inextricably on one side of a bifurcated population. It presents itself in the fervor of college football (see Auburn/Alabama, Ole Miss MS State, etc). in the righteous certainty of religious sects, the devotion to one brand of crappy American trucks ("I'd rather push a Ford then drive a Chevy"), and of course, politics.

The team sport aspect of politics itself is rooted in the us v. them mentality. Desegregation is probably the clearest demonstration of this at play, but anything that may support a social safety net is easily and immoderately classified as someone from the "other" side winning by taking from your side. Ultimately, nuanced policy positions do not matter. One's true self interests do not matter. The health of the nation as a whole do not matter. Yo're born rooting for one team and by God you'll be loyal to it for the rest of your life.

xynix:LordZorch: When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

Those were "Southern Democrats" which in fact are far-right republicans and Strom Thurmond pretty much started the final shift of the racist right to move from Democratic votes to Republican. It didn't start there though .. To understand where this rift happened and how there is a great book called Team of Rivals which is about Lincoln's presidency but doesn't focus on the president wholly. It's a great read for someone trying to figure out how back-door politics works and explains why Lincoln was a Republican. I've also read Grants, FDRs, Ikes, Reagan, and Bush's biographys. All good reads even if you don't agree with policies.

Made for some very interesting alliances in congress over the decades. Great stuff to learn about - too bad what passes for a government today is so clueless in comparison.

GAT_00:doyner: GAT_00: And the root of all of that is slavery. It started as protecting slavery, and then became despising carpetbaggers, then became segregation, and today it still IS segregation, they just don't call it that anymore.

I used to get a kick of going home in uniform and being the recipient of the adulation of the militaristic nationalists, only to blow their minds with my relatively liberal views. I don't do that at all any more (haven't for years)--it's just too damned dangerous these days.

I go to school 5 minutes from a church that was shot up by someone wanting to kill liberals, openly proclaiming that. You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

I live in the same area as you and it's no more dangerous to be a liberal than it is to be a conservative. But that doesn't sell your ridiculous brand of idiocy and martyrdom.

Coco LaFemme:It really doesn't matter if we keep the Electoral College or if we dump it and go straight popular vote. There are states in this country that will never vote for a certain party, regardless of the means by which the votes are divvied up. Alabama will never go blue again, New York will not go red. So even if we got rid of the EC, there aren't enough Democrats in Alabama, nor are there enough Republicans in New York.

What we need to do is make voting mandatory. Something like 40% of the electorate votes every 4 years, which is farking pathetic. More people give a shiat about who wins Dancing With The Stars, than who is elected President. When you're 18, you should be required to register to vote, and if you don't vote, unless you have a hardship, you're fined. Maybe $30 or something, and that money gets put in your town/city's coffers to fund public works projects, like a new playground in the inner city for kids, or refurbishing a local library.

Sweden and Australia get near 96%. Yes, make it compulsary or pay a $20 penalty. And how about weekend voting? A number of democracies have multiple voting days. But of course, isn't it better for Republican secretaries of state to dole out too few voting machines for minority (democratic) neighborhoods which results in people unable to vote due to long lines?

Dwight_Yeast:doyner: I'll buy the premise of the article when a Democrat wins MS and AL for the presidency.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't Clinton carry the Deep South?

Not all of it. In 1992, he only carried AR, TN, LA, and GA. I don't consider Kentucky the "Deep South", though he did win it. In 1996, he carried the same, minus GA and plus FL. The last Democrat to win the entire "Deep South" was Jimmy Carter.

GAT_00:I go to school 5 minutes from a church that was shot up by someone wanting to kill liberals, openly proclaiming that. You don't have to tell me about how dangerous it is to be a liberal in the South.

*checks profile*

Ah. Tennessee. Yeah.

There are a few places in the south where it's cool to be liberal. My personal favorites are Asheville, NC and Oxford, MS. Still, they're too few and far between.

nmrsnr:Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

I fail to see why a one million voter gap in California shouldn't count more than a 500,000 voter gap in Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana.

No, a better system is an electoral college system that isn't all-or-nothing. Make it something like a plurality win is a 60-40 split, 50.1% is 70-30, win by more than 5%, 80-20, by more than 8%, 90-10, and more than 10%, you get all the votes. That way even if you're polling 8 points down in Alabama, you can still win electoral votes by campaigning there if you can swing the election a point in your favor. It makes electoral math a lot more dynamic, and no state is totally off-limits.This is neither a sporting event nor a farking game show, and our "scoring system" shouldn't act like it is. I could understand a universal adoption of proportionally awarding electoral votes (a single state doing so is suicidal towards its influence, see "Coloradans Against a Really Dumb Idea", 2004), but your system sounds and is retarded.

jake_lex:This is why the Electoral College needs to DIAF. Yeah, these states are developing pockets of Democratic voters, but no way will Obama, or any other Democratic candidate in the foreseeable future, carry the state as a whole, so those votes are getting flushed down the shiatter.

And I hate the "If there's no electoral college, small states get neglected!" argument. As it is now, a candidate can write off a state they know they can't win: Obama can scratch off Georgia, say, and Romney can forget about California. But if the candidates have to hunt and scratch for every vote everywhere to win, they have to pay attention to the country as a whole, including places they may find irrelevant under the current system.

Yeah, but if I can win 1% point in California, then I get more votes than any realistic margin of victory in a state like Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, etc. so I still will ignore low population states, since their votes can be made up elsewhere.

No, a better system is an electoral college system that isn't all-or-nothing. Make it something like a plurality win is a 60-40 split, 50.1% is 70-30, win by more than 5%, 80-20, by more than 8%, 90-10, and more than 10%, you get all the votes. That way even if you're polling 8 points down in Alabama, you can still win electoral votes by campaigning there if you can swing the election a point in your favor. It makes electoral math a lot more dynamic, and no state is totally off-limits.

LordZorch:When I was a kid the "South" was so solidly democrat that it was just assumed (correctly) that it would vote a straight party ticket for all offices. Then the fundietards took over.....

Those were "Southern Democrats" which in fact are far-right republicans and Strom Thurmond pretty much started the final shift of the racist right to move from Democratic votes to Republican. It didn't start there though .. To understand where this rift happened and how there is a great book called Team of Rivals which is about Lincoln's presidency but doesn't focus on the president wholly. It's a great read for someone trying to figure out how back-door politics works and explains why Lincoln was a Republican. I've also read Grants, FDRs, Ikes, Reagan, and Bush's biographys. All good reads even if you don't agree with policies.